Lord of the Rings TV Series Purchased by Amazon

[Lorgar Aurelian]

House of the dragon does not have a higher viewer count than RoP thats simple facts, only 9.3 million tuned into the last episode of HOTD where around 40-50 million watched the whole RoP series back when it was released.

No clue which show actually had more viewers but if Dragon had a supposed 9M for the last episode and had 10 episodes it would have likely be higher then 40-50M for the whole series with likely far more then 9M watching the first episode and then the number falling until every episode had around atleast 9M viewers

[kenn9530]

No clue which show actually had more viewers but if Dragon had a supposed 9M for the last episode and had 10 episodes it would have likely be higher then 40-50M for the whole series with likely far more then 9M watching the first episode and then the number falling until every episode had around atleast 9M viewers

10 million tuned in for the first and 9.3 million tuned into the last episode on its initial releases, the fantasy genre has a certain fanbase, the last of us got like 4 times that numbers but its a different genre, both shows are more than successful enough, so with similar or higher numbers why would anyone state rings of power is not just as successful as a series, the reason is certain posters on here are not posting constructively they just want to say its bad for the sake of it and not acknowleged the simple facts.

[Lorgar Aurelian]

10 million tuned in for the first and 9.3 million tuned into the last episode on its initial releases, the fantasy genre has a certain fanbase, the last of us got like 4 times that numbers but its a different genre, both shows are more than successful enough, so with similar or higher numbers why would anyone state rings of power is not just as successful as a series, the reason is certain posters on here are not posting constructively they just want to say its bad for the sake of it and not acknowleged the simple facts.

Well assuming all the numbers you stated are correct dragon would have likely have had like 80M watcher for the whole series which would be about double the number you gave for RoP.

And given that some people want to compare them and say one is good and one is bad that’s a fairly big assumed different they could point to.

[Fabinas]

If it was shit you wouldnt have watched it all, noone watches a whole series if they think its that bad, you are just lying here. Im not saying its the best series in the world but you must of found it entertaining enough to watch it all, you are not being honest in the slightest, i prefer sci fi series higher than fantasy.

Not everybody thinks the same way you do.

I may have watched it because i'm a masochist.

I kept on watching it hoping that it would pick up at some point. Or because i was curious.

I may have endured watching it in order to have an informed opinion. So i can actually call it "shit" and have noone tell me "but you didn't watch it, how would you know?"

But in your "logic", i watched it all, therefore i liked it.

What's next? Me saying it's shit is because i'm here to troll you, Rhorle, Adamas etc.?

[kenn9530]

Well assuming all the numbers you stated are correct dragon would have likely have had like 80M watcher for the whole series which would be about double the number you gave for RoP.

And given that some people want to compare them and say one is good and one is bad that’s a fairly big assumed different they could point to.

It seems you cant do basic math, each episode doesnt add another 10 million onto the viewer number, 1 viewer is 1 no matter if they watched 1 episode or all 10 episodes.

- - - Updated - - -

Not everybody thinks the same way you do.

I may have watched it because i'm a masochist.

I kept on watching it hoping that it would pick up at some point. Or because i was curious.

I may have endured watching it in order to have an informed opinion. So i can actually call it "shit" and have noone tell me "but you didn't watch it, how would you know?"

But in your "logic", i watched it all, therefore i liked it.

What's next? Me saying it's shit is because i'm here to troll you, Rhorle, Adamas etc.?

You are just lying here, if you hated it that much you wouldnt watch anymore its just that simple, anyone who watched the whole series actually did like the show, if you dont like something you stop watching it, its as simple as that, if you watch a whole series you liked it enough to watch it at least once.

[UhmHi]

"Anyone who watched the whole series actually did like the show."

Absolutely not true.

[Syegfryed]

The point I make is lingual mate. The word bad is a subjective term, because it entails a judgement of percieved/relative quality.

Word bad seems to pbe pretty fucking objective when its the opposite of good

The show deviated from lore <— objective

The deviation from lore is bad <— subjective

Here is the thing, deviation from lore, alone, is not good or bad, because is not tied to quality, just intent. What is good, bad or neutral is HOW they do it, and that is tied to quality. It can be better, it can be neutral, or it can be rly bad.

You have a show like House of the Dragon, that have deviation from the books, but a lot of the deviations were good, because many reasons(like the book being a story told by the pov of some characters, so they could get facts wrong distorted, or the author seeing that something different works better). The deviation from Rings of power is a bad fanfic that downgrade the quality of the original story.

Thats just basic storytelling mate, anyone can see that making mithril magic juju that heal elves, because they had to recharge their light was obnoxious.

It being good or bad however, is subjective, even if you have corroborating evidence that 99.9999% of the population will agree.

Thats...not how it works mate, you are arguing that shit, human feces, does not taste bad, because its a subjective word, and some people out there might like eating, thats not a hill do die on

[Lorgar Aurelian]

It seems you cant do basic math, each episode doesnt add another 10 million onto the viewer number, 1 viewer is 1 no matter if they watched 1 episode or all 10 episodes.

Um no.

You said 9M tuned into the last episode of dragon and 40-50M watched the whole series for RoP, last episode and whole series are vastly Different things.

If you meant to say those were the total unique viewers for both series sure but it’s not what you actually posted.

[Triceron]

I
You are just lying here, if you hated it that much you wouldnt watch anymore its just that simple, anyone who watched the whole series actually did like the show, if you dont like something you stop watching it, its as simple as that, if you watch a whole series you liked it enough to watch it at least once.

I watched the whole series, and while I enjoyed aspects of the show, overall it didn't meet my expectations and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who shares my taste in movies. Very few of my friends watched any more than the first 3 episodes.

I kept watching because I am a general fantasy genre fan, and there are so few shows of the genre that exist. Same can be said of me watching Wheel of Time and Willow entire seasons. The fantasy genre isn't exactly brimming with options here.

Same reason I pick up and play some new RTS games even if they may end up being mediocre; there's not a lot of options out there other than sticking to the same 10+ yr old ones. I'm a fan of the genre more I am of the specific games. It's just sad that it's unlikely we'd ever get more Warcraft or Starcraft RTS.

[kenn9530]

Um no.

You said 9M tuned into the last episode of dragon and 40-50M watched the whole series for RoP, last episode and whole series are vastly Different things.

If you meant to say those were the total unique viewers for both series sure but it’s not what you actually posted.

I only talk about unique viewers, its the same thing, 10 million started house of the dragon and 9.3 million finished the series, RoP started with 25 million and ended with 40-50 million ending the series, this is just who watched the show as it was being released, viewers are always calculated as seperate ppl.

[Adamas102]

That IS the lore. It doesn't matter if he didn't choose other numbers, that 300 years is the tine he chose. It is the fictional history.

And yes, you can argue that changing history isn't a big deal for the story you want to tell; ultimately that is subjective. Your regard of the significance of these numbers is subjective. It's still lore, no matter how insignificant you may think it is.

So basically your entire argument stems from a blind adherence to the source material with no thought whatsoever. This is what I've been talking about from the beginning; lore for the sake of lore being a terrible way to approach or judge an adaptation.

That's exactly my point! Lore is HISTORY. If history isn't recorded, then nothing happens. Any attempt to fill in the blanks with headcanon that (intentional or not) diminishes the history is bastardizing it. Scouring of the Shire omission is one example. Changing the witch King's defeat is another. These are diminished accounts of the actual history of what happened in the actual lore.

No, that is not the case. If it's blank then it can't be diminished. This is seriously the dumbest argument to continue going around and around on. If it's blank, there is no lore, so anything added doesn't diminish, it increases by definition. That doesn't mean it's canon, but it's certainly not a diminishing. In fact, this is one of the biggest advantages of adaptation.

It's like you keep forgetting (or ignoring) that this isn't even the definitive story that the original author wanted to tell. These were notes. A work in progress. Just because he died before he could craft them into their own narrative doesn't mean that what's left on the page forms a fully realized lore. In fact, we can more strongly argue that given Tolkien's fully fleshed out works that are part of the setting (LotR, The Hobbit, and the various short stories), that adding narrative improves, elevates, and expands the lore, not diminishes it. And that adding narrative would indeed be in line with the overall intent of the author. Tolkien did a lot of world building in the background with notes like this, but his completed works were very much narrative driven.

No, it is NOT the pinnacle. It is the TOPIC of this specific discussion! It's like if you were commenting to my criticism on the show's poor pacing, I'm going to talk about the show's poor pacing. If we have a 30 page discussion on the pacing of the show, it does not suddenly mean I consider pacing to be the pinnacle of what makes a good show.

A question to you here is why do you even care if the lire is bastardized or not? You seem to be defending it without regarding book lore as being significant to the show at all, so this doesn't take ANYTHING away from your enjoyment of this show . It's like you only want to argue against it ib principle, while completely disregarding what the meaning of lore actually means, like when you say Tolkien picking 300 years has no significance. It doesn't matter if yiu think that or not, because Tolkien choosing 300 years isn't subjective, it is objective fact. We are talking act of changing history to fit a narrative that is meant to retell history.

The source material is NOT the pinnacle of what makes a good show, because my explanation of how the lore is being bastardized has nothing to do with defining the show being good or bad objectively.

I care because you're not applying the definition correctly. You're right, we're not talking about whether the show was good or not, or whether I enjoyed it or not (I haven't even brought up any of that myself). But your premise is incorrect and is indeed based on the idea of lore being the pinnacle (even if you don't want to admit it) because that's where you have to start if you're going to lay out blanket assertions that this, or any other adaptation, is a diminished copy simply because it doesn't adhere to the lore 100%.

That it does not have the intent of being historically accurate does not remove it from what it is still doing. A dramatic narrative that embellishes history for the sake of its art may also be bastardizing it a byproduct of being based on historic accounts. What would define it as bastardization is dependant on how it is being embellished. inglorious Basterds, as intentionally canoy as it is, is still predicated on being based on history even if fictionally. And from that same historic perspective, history is clearly being bastardized for the sake of the art. It is both an embellishment AND a bastardization. The only difference is perspective.

Two sides of the same coin.

It does matter that it's not intended to be historically accurate because that means it's not meant to be a copy and therefore cannot be a bastardization, no matter how simplified in detail it is compared to the actual history. Something like Drunk History would be a bastardization because the intent is to recount the actual historical events but in a condensed and more humorously driven form.

It's the job of a narrative to flesh out the details, very true. But as I point out, when adapting established history that is sparse on details, there is a duality between authenticity (documentary style, ala Appendices) and applying creative license. It's two sides of the same coin, and you can't flip both faces in the same side.

'Bastardization of the lore' is merely a term that leans towards favouring book authenticity over creative license. And this term was specifically being used someone who was favouring book authenticity over creative license. The term is perfectly applicable to the show. It is not a term that denotes a flaw or drawback at all, since Rings of Power is not beholden to adapting the lore faithfully.

When I say I'm speaking about this objectively, I am talking about not having a preference between being authentic/faithful to the source, or applying creative license. I remain quite agnostic on this topic, since I find equal value in both.

The point you're missing is that these things aren't mutually exclusive. You can most definitely adhere to source material AND apply creative license. Especially so when the source material is so lacking in detail. The appendices merely state that Sauron deceived the smiths and gave them the knowledge to craft the Rings of Power. The show actually reflects that lore in its entirety. You might not like the creative license they took to flesh out the narrative, but that doesn't mean the lore is diminished.

Again, not gonna comment on stuff I don't know much about. I have no intention of arguing for the sake of arguing here.

'by my definition' doesn't mean much since you're applying it to a context that may or may not be applicable. inevitably bastardizing lore" is specific to adapting the 2nd Age"s history into a single narrative, while you're taking the comment out of context, which changes my definition.

My arguments are specific RoP, not intended to be used universally.

No, that wasn't your argument. Your exact words were "All I'm pointing out is that the process of choosing to adapt it into a singular narrative inevitably bastardizes the lore". You're stating that the process of changing the narrative structure (which isn't specific to RoP) inevitably diminishes the lore. And I pointed out, with multiple examples, of that not being the case. Especially with what I noted above about Tolkien's completed works all being narrative driven.

You keep saying this is specific to RoP, but then you give no details to support that, instead relying on these blanket ideas that it's the change in narrative structure or simply a deviation from the exact words on the page that makes it a bastardization when those points aren't unique to RoP (and refuted by the aforementioned examples).

[kenn9530]

I watched the whole series, and while I enjoyed aspects of the show, overall it didn't meet my expectations and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone who shares my taste in movies. Very few of my friends watched any more than the first 3 episodes.

I kept watching because I am a general fantasy genre fan, and there are so few shows of the genre that exist. Same can be said of me watching Wheel of Time and Willow entire seasons. The fantasy genre isn't exactly brimming with options here.

Same reason I pick up and play some new RTS games even if they may end up being mediocre; there's not a lot of options out there other than sticking to the same 10+ yr old ones. I'm a fan of the genre more I am of the specific games. It's just sad that it's unlikely we'd ever get more Warcraft or Starcraft RTS.

It still means you enjoyed it more than enough to watch the whole show, if the show really bad you are just going to stop watching it, you can still like the show as it is and still want it to be more without the need to claim a show is just terrible.

[Triceron]

So basically your entire argument stems from a blind adherence to the source material with no thought whatsoever.

What exactly do you think the term 'Lore bastardization' applies to if not the source material?

Do you actually understand the very term you're discussing here?

It seems to be you don't actually want to regard the term in how its used, and simply don't want it being called a bastardization of the lore for the sake of argument. Is this what this is all about? For fucks sake.

I care because you're not applying the definition correctly. You're right, we're not talking about whether the show was good or not, or whether I enjoyed it or not (I haven't even brought up any of that myself). But your premise is incorrect and is indeed based on the idea of lore being the pinnacle (even if you don't want to admit it) because that's where you have to start if you're going to lay out blanket assertions that this, or any other adaptation, is a diminished copy simply because it doesn't adhere to the lore 100%.

It does not base on the idea of the lore being a pinnacle, it is based on the idea of the lore being the origin of which any adaptation is considered a copy. And any alteration can be (subjectively) considered a diminished copy of the original, it can be considered to be a bastardization.

Now, whether anyone consider its to be a bastardization is and can be subjective. However it doesn't mean it's ONLY subjective, since like the term 'Good' can be used subjectively, it can also be applied objectively when referring to a specific instance, like '90% score is typically considered a Good score'; this is not a subjective value this is an objective application of the term. And if we're looking at how of Rings of Power has transformed the lore of the original to suit its own narrative, then the term 'Lore bastardization' can be objectively applied, because bastardization means a corruption of the original. And I have brought up many cases where RoP CAN BE CONSIDERED corrupting the original lore.

You can disagree with the entire premise if you want, and it would be on a subjective premise that you don't agree that the lore should be considered in such a way; but you can't really dismiss the nature of the term being applied objectively to describe the relationship between the adaptation and the original source. The term is being applied the way it's meant to be used.

That you don't think the lore should be given any appeal to authenticity is a completely different argument than the one I'm making about the objective application of the term, much in the way 'Good score' would be objectively applied outside of any subjective context. 'Lore Bastardization' means a diminished copy of the original history, and that is an objective term that is (subjectively) applicable to RoP's adaptation of the original Book lore. Much in the way 'Good Score' is term that is both applicable objectively and subjectively.

[Triceron]

It still means you enjoyed it more than enough to watch the whole show, if the show really bad you are just going to stop watching it, you can still like the show as it is and still want it to be more without the need to claim a show is just terrible.

No, it doesn't.

I watched the entire season so I could properly evaluate the final product, as opposed to base my opinion on an impression.

If I only stopped at 3 episodes, I wouldn't know if the show ever got better. I'd have to watch the full series to know, otherwise wait on others to tell me so; and for this particular show I would have rather experienced it first hand rather than get my opinions from a secondary source. And that's not saying I'm opposed to avoiding bad shows if I hear questionable things about it; I certainly avoided some Marvel tv series based on sources I trust. But when it comes to fantasy genres, I find that it's more niche and not a lot of people enjoy the same things I do since there really isn't a whole lot of fantasy film in general; it's still considered quite a niche. Often fantasy genre gets lumped in with broad kid/young adult fantasy films that I'm less interested in; like a Percy Jackson or some Peter Pan-like adventure in a new fantasy world

if the show really bad you are just going to stop watching it, you can still like the show as it is and still want it to be more without the need to claim a show is just terrible.

That's like calling a movie terrible based on a bad trailer, and never forming a complete opinion at the refusal to watch it. I don't consider that an well formed opinion.

And for the record, I do still want it to be more without claiming the show is terrible. But despite any arguments I present here to critique or offer suggestions for what I'd prefer, there will be people here who just don't wanna hear it and lump any criticism as outrage/objective hate.

Like of often I'll point out the poor pacing or how certain plot elements just don't flow well or make much sense in terms of verisimiltude; and what happens is someone else gets defensive about it and tries to invalidate the comment by saying it makes perfect sense to them and the show doesn't need to change because it's already considered a success or being watched by millions of people. It's a deflection rather than a discussion. Eventually that ends up polarizing into thinking any criticism equates to calling the show terrible, even though the critique may be about one specific aspect of the show that doesn't reflect the overall product's quality. Like, we can't even have a proper conversation about any acting or performance without someone popping in to try and invalidate the opinion because they happen to personally enjoy it; or worse yet trying to spin any criticism as being some form of discrimination or toxic ideology.

[Veggie50]

Word bad seems to pbe pretty fucking objective when its the opposite of good



Here is the thing, deviation from lore, alone, is not good or bad, because is not tied to quality, just intent. What is good, bad or neutral is HOW they do it, and that is tied to quality. It can be better, it can be neutral, or it can be rly bad.

You have a show like House of the Dragon, that have deviation from the books, but a lot of the deviations were good, because many reasons(like the book being a story told by the pov of some characters, so they could get facts wrong distorted, or the author seeing that something different works better). The deviation from Rings of power is a bad fanfic that downgrade the quality of the original story.

Thats just basic storytelling mate, anyone can see that making mithril magic juju that heal elves, because they had to recharge their light was obnoxious.





Thats...not how it works mate, you are arguing that shit, human feces, does not taste bad, because its a subjective word, and some people out there might like eating, thats not a hill do die on

Bad is objective because its the opposite of good..? How do you not forget to pull your pants down before shitting xD

Bad = subjective
Good = subjective

That grass is green = objective
That grass has a good colour = subjective
That grass has a bad colour = subjective

“Good” and “bad” don’t state anything about somethings properties. A cake can be good, just as a movie can be good. We mean entirely different things with this though.

I honestly don’t know how to explain this any simpler…

[Adamas102]

What exactly do you think the term 'Lore bastardization' applies to if not the source material?

Do you actually understand the very term you're discussing here?

Yes! It means diminished! Lore for the sake of lore doesn't automatically mean an adaptation is a diminished version. You have to actually make an argument for HOW it's diminished, which is something you continually fail to do.

It does not base on the idea of the lore being a pinnacle, it is based on the idea of the lore being the origin of which any adaptation is considered a copy. And any alteration can be (subjectively) considered a diminished copy of the original, it can be considered to be a bastardization.

Now, whether anyone consider its to be a bastardization is and can be subjective. However it doesn't mean it's ONLY subjective, since like the term 'Good' can be used subjectively, it can also be applied objectively when referring to a specific instance, like '90% score is typically considered a Good score'; this is not a subjective value this is an objective application of the term. And if we're looking at how of Rings of Power has transformed the lore of the original to suit its own narrative, then the term 'Lore bastardization' can be objectively applied, because bastardization means a corruption of the original. And I have brought up many cases where RoP CAN BE CONSIDERED corrupting the original lore.

You can disagree with the entire premise if you want, and it would be on a subjective premise that you don't agree that the lore should be considered in such a way; but you can't really dismiss the nature of the term being applied objectively to describe the relationship between the adaptation and the original source. The term is being applied the way it's meant to be used.

That you don't think the lore should be given any appeal to authenticity is a completely different argument than the one I'm making about the objective application of the term, much in the way 'Good score' would be objectively applied outside of any subjective context. 'Lore Bastardization' means a diminished copy of the original history, and that is an objective term that is (subjectively) applicable to RoP's adaptation of the original Book lore. Much in the way 'Good Score' is term that is both applicable objectively and subjectively.

In one breathe you'll say something is invariably bastardized and in the next say it's completely subjective and in the following breathe say that the show can be objectively labeled as a bastardization. Flip flop flip flop.

I'll clear it up for you. It isn't subjective. You CAN objectively determine whether something is a diminished or degraded copy of something else. It has nothing to do with saying it's good or not, and since I haven't made that point I don't know why you keep harping on it. My guess is that you just don't really have a good grasp of the argument at hand.

I gave an example of Drunk History as a purposefully degraded recounting of historical events. This isn't a subjective interpretation, and regardless of how much more enjoyable it is to watch an episode of it compared to reading a textbook account it's still a diminished and degraded copy. I think Drunk History is fantastic and I don't care one bit that it's a bastardization of history. As for RoP, it's objectively NOT a diminished copy because it's building upon the vague and disjointed foundation that is the lore and attempting to interpret it in a way that's more in line with the published works of the original author. That doesn't mean it does a good job or that you have to find it enjoyable, but it's objectively an EXPANDED interpretation (NOT a diminished copy).

[jackofwind]

What is subjective is TASTE, if people LIKE, or DON'T LIKE IT.

That's what good and bad mean. There is no objective truth of good or bad.

- - - Updated - - -

Word bad seems to pbe pretty fucking objective when its the opposite of good

Both of which are subjective.

[Triceron]

Yes! It means diminished! Lore for the sake of lore doesn't automatically mean an adaptation is a diminished version. You have to actually make an argument for HOW it's diminished, which is something you continually fail to do.

No, you having a different opinion does not invalidate my examples.

Just like someone arguing why they think lore was good does not get invalidated by someone else disagreeing on HOW they thought it was good.

- - - Updated - - -

I gave an example of Drunk History as a purposefully degraded recounting of historical events. This isn't a subjective interpretation, and regardless of how much more enjoyable it is to watch an episode of it compared to reading a textbook account it's still a diminished and degraded copy. I think Drunk History is fantastic and I don't care one bit that it's a bastardization of history. As for RoP, it's objectively NOT a diminished copy because it's building upon the vague and disjointed foundation that is the lore and attempting to interpret it in a way that's more in line with the published works of the original author. That doesn't mean it does a good job or that you have to find it enjoyable, but it's objectively an EXPANDED interpretation (NOT a diminished copy).

Then you're hyperfocusing on one aspect of the terminology to create an argument to dismiss it on technicality.

Expanding on lore doesn't equate to being immune to being considered a bastardization of said lore. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Adamas102]

No, you having a different opinion does not invalidate my examples.

Just like someone arguing why they think lore was good does not get invalidated by someone else disagreeing on HOW they thought it was good.

It's not a difference of opinion. You're simply not making any sort of objective assessment of the lore, relying solely on the fact that it exists as the basis for your stance.

Your only examples have relied on either personal confusion or headcanon that you yourself tried to pass off as the lore that the show ignored.

Are you going to at all address the points of the source material being work in progress notes and not intended to be the author's definitive version AND the fact that the author's completed works in the setting revolve very much around character driven narrative? Or are you going to ignore that because it undermines your idea of the additions to the lore diminishing it?

Then you're hyperfocusing on one aspect of the terminology to create an argument to dismiss it on technicality.

Expanding on lore doesn't equate to being immune to being considered a bastardization of said lore. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

It's not a complicated definition. What you say I'm hyperfocused on are the only two operative words in the definition "diminished" and "copy". If you can't be bothered to assess the source material objectively then any stance you take on an adaptation of that source material is tainted by your bias, which is what this whole discussion has revolved around.

[Triceron]

It's not a difference of opinion.

Multiple times you said 'Its not a bastardization, it's an embellishment'

That is a difference of opinion. It's a perspective issue, nothing more.

It's not a complicated definition.

And we have no reason to oversimplify a definition that isn't very complicated to understand. Yet that's what exactly what you're doing. You're hyperfocusing and oversimplifying, for the sake of argument, nothing more.

If you're going to argue that nothing was being bastardized because they're actually embellishments, then the argument is no different than if they said it wasn't an embellishment, it's a bastardization. These are the same arguments being applied from different perspectives. Both terms denote a changes to the lore, one in favour of authenticity, one in favour of creativity. That's all.

And all I'm saying the terminology for either word wouldn't be misused in the context of describing what RoP does to the lore, because it's a valid use of the word to denote the change to the lore from a certain perspective. And such a use of the word does not reflect on the quality or subjective value of the product as a whole, since the context is specific to changes to the lore.

Are you going to at all address the points of the source material being work in progress notes and not intended to be the author's definitive version

At this point there's no reason for me to make those arguments, since you are willing to even dismiss actual lore as being lore.

If you're arguing that Tolkien picking 300 years doesn't matter and saying it's not lore, then it's clear to me you don't really know or care what lore actually is, and undermine the entire topic we're discussing.

If anything, all you're saying is lore shouldn't matter to any adaptation. I totally agree. Not once have I argued whether the book lore matters at all. All I have argued is the term is applicable to the context.


Honestly, what does it matter if Rings of Power bastardizes ot embellishes the lore? Can you actually tell me why it matters to you if someone has the opinion that it is bastardized? Because it's no different than if they thought the lore was embellished; you wouldn't argue against that right? The only difference is you're arguing against one word being used because it conflicts with your own personal opinion. Again, a difference of opinion and perspective, nothing more.